patrick.net

CL says

Listen to the Libertarians, and THEN reject them.

Good advise regarding Democrats

Agreed.

46

indigenous 2014 Oct 4, 2:35am

The idea of representative government is a charade.

Just do the math, 300+ million divided by 100 senators = 1 senator per 3 million

How the fuck is a senator going to know what 3 million people want? Let alone in a state like Calif where it is 1 senator for 20 million. One of Calif's senators is a corrupt and married to a real estate agent the other is barely smart enough to walk on her hind legs, who appropriately represents the unions. If ever there was an argument for repealing the 17th amendment these two are it.

Congress is about 1/4 of that so 1 congressman would represent 750,000 constituents. Even if (big if) they wanted to know, how would they know what 750,000 constituents wanted?

The better solution is to emaciate government.

Is that going to happen nope. It is only a question of when not if...

47

JH 2014 Oct 4, 3:20am

Even if (big if) they wanted to know, how would they know what 750,000 constituents wanted?

Well they could poll us and follow the majority wishes rather than the 0.1% who pay them off. If you look at polls at least over the past 6 years, the reps are doing the exact opposite, repeatedly. They think they know better? They aren't elected to think, they are elected to represent the majority and legislate accordingly.

48

indigenous 2014 Oct 4, 3:44am

Well they could poll us and follow the majority wishes rather than the 0.1%

The reality is that inequality thing is a straw-man. If you subscribe you are being duped.

The reality is that the corps at the top lobby for corporate welfare. The poor constituents at the bottom have the tyranny of the democracy.

The middle class (if any left) don't have any real representation.

Before deciding on the upper 1% you have to consider:

After tax is a better comparison, seeing how the majority of taxes are paid by the rich. (don't bring up the Buffet horseshit for a moment) And 50% pay 0 taxes.

Household income is used as a metric, most upper quintile households have more than 1 income. Most lower quintile have less than 1 income.

Household income is cut in half after a divorce, in the 70's the number of divorces skyrocketed.

Government transfers are not counted as income, so welfare of all stripes is not counted, thus making the poor appear poorer.

And most of all recently with QE, people with investments made a lot more money on paper, because inflation is not equal. It always favors those closest to the cheap/free money.

49

JH 2014 Oct 4, 3:56am

And 50% pay 0 taxes

Payroll taxes don't count? Look, 30 years (plus) ago we had a much different tax structure. It has changed drastically now and celebrities, athletes, and corporations are absolutely flush with cash. I remember the 80s when an athlete making a million was unheard of. Now if the contract isn't 9 figures they are getting "duped".

We also have a government that does not represent us as we both agree.

But to me the bottom line is this: our reps should rep us not a model/ideal/philosophy. If the majority of people are on food stamps (false) and want the rich to pay more taxes, then that is what our country should do whether or not it is good for us. That is what democracy is. As long as the majority can agree on a way to pay, then we should be able to vote for whatever the hell we want.

The problem is that we have a 2 party system: therefore, we elect based on a model/ideal/philosophy not based on real issues. I wish our ballots looked like your poll, with multiple candidates for every position. Whenever there is a third party on the ballot I vote for that party. I don't give a shit what their 'philosophy' is...I just want more choices and am sick and tired of the bullshit Dems vs GOP. It's a tired old tune.

50

Tenpoundbass 2014 Oct 4, 4:04am

The problem I have with Libertarians, is they don't provide enough info on how they would handle social health.

How would their system take care of the weak, the honestly destitute and the elderly?

Libertarian party is a fantasy world, that sounds great in terms of 1776-1945 fiscal economics, but in modern times. It's as obsolete as the horse and buggy.

Yes those of us that are big enough to stand on our own and don't need all of the government intrusion, and the Libertarian party is pure blissful Utopia to that class of people.

But if were not collecting some taxes at least with a clear understanding of what we are spending it on, and who actually gets government support; and is not fraudulently claiming those goods and services. Then who takes care of those that needs help?

I think they avoid the topic because they are too afraid to get sucked into a race chicken fight. As I'm sure their wording of any such policy, would read like a Democrat kid in a Republican Candy Store, who just saw father O'Malley giving head to the school bully.

The Libertarian party would be the only wise choice, if were still a self sufficient nation of self starters, and dreams were still attainable.
It's not so easy to dream and then realize those dreams anymore.
You've got assholes in washington either outlawing dreams, or taxing them or regulating them so heavily that dreaming is practically a rich mans game.

That really needs to be fixed in this country, then we wont have so many able bodied people needing handouts from the Government.

That being said, I'm voting for Adrian Wyllie for Florida Governor this year.
He's the 3rd party choice.
What gets me, is how Libertarians are running on Democrat or Republican tickets. At least this guy came out of the gate, just running on a 3rd ticket. Rather than diluting his beliefs down to fit one of the two parties rehtoric.

51

indigenous 2014 Oct 4, 4:08am

And 50% pay 0 taxes

Should have read Federal income tax.

That is what democracy is.

This country is not a Democracy, it is a Republic.

Whenever there is a third party on the ballot I vote for that party.

it is the nature of the beast. If a 3rd party gets started it likely takes mostly away from one of the other parties. E.G. Libertarian takes mostly away from Republicans. So the Libertarian will not want to vote Libertarian as it gives an unfair advantage to the Ds

52

darlag 2014 Oct 4, 6:58am

I stopped voting in national elections almost 20 years ago with one exception - I voted for Obama in 2008. Not because I thought he'd make a great president, I thought it might send a good social message to young blacks if he won.

I only vote local these days because that is all that really affects me.

I registered as independent in 1975, my voter card actually said independent. Then the Independent Party formed and they changed my card to say NA - not affiliated I guess.

I have voted twice for myself for President, in 1968 and 72 - the Nixon years. I lost both elections... luckily. I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 then I didn't vote again until I voted for Ross Perot in 1992. I voted for Nader when he was Green Party, 1996. I haven't voted since except for the Obama thing.

There is no practical difference between most of the parties. Candidates swap parties all the time so the labels don't really mean anything. No party ever lives true to the planks in its platform.

I have no interest in politics anymore. I understand the derivation of the word comes from POLY meaning many, and TICKS, meaning blood-sucking insects.

53

indigenous 2014 Oct 4, 7:03am

How would their system take care of the weak, the honestly destitute and the elderly?

That is part of the problem, "we need the government to do it for us". How did people deal with this in the past? Elderly lived with their children, destitute were taken care of by the church, the community had to step up, or I suppose you could say fuck em?, but most would not do that.

But when you consider how much it cost for the nanny state to wipe your ass for you, it ain't no bargain. With an abundance of 6 figure employees doing a half ass job with ridiculously expensive equipment, the taxes should be reduced by more than the hours it takes for you to earn the expense of the taxes. Plus you get the benefit of not living in your reduced government world.

But if were not collecting some taxes at least with a clear understanding of what we are spending it on, and who actually gets government support; and is not fraudulently claiming those goods and services. Then who takes care of those that needs help?

Taxes for what?

The Fed was born of the states not the other way around. This means that it was not intended to have a bloated Fed government.

The best way to get away from fraud is keep the taxes where they are collected. Fraud is best detected at the local level. Fraud is best perpetrated at the Fed centralized level. This is how we end up with TBTF, corporate welfare, the department of boy do we waste money and how yet produce nothing, defense contractors with 1 billion dollar fighter planes, 2.5 trillion dollar lost by the pentagon, gross waste in Social Services, etc etc

Another one is an education department that cost 10k per kid per year to produce a 50% dropout rate. So that condemns the graduates/dropouts of that school to a life time of menial jobs. Why not have vouchers and privatize or pay the moms/dads who home school? Could it be ANY worse?

The Libertarian party would be the only wise choice, if were still a self sufficient nation of self starters, and dreams were still attainable.

It's not so easy to dream and then realize those dreams anymore.

You've got assholes in washington either outlawing dreams, or taxing them or regulating them so heavily that dreaming is practically a rich mans game.

The best way to predict the future it to create it.

When you instead pay 10 million people to be disabled, 99 weeks to be unemployed, to be unmarried with children, to be so poor you are homeless, to be so poor you can't eat. Then you get the disabled, unemployed, single mothers, homeless, hungry.

You've got assholes in washington either outlawing dreams, or taxing them or regulating them so heavily that dreaming is practically a rich mans game.

And their entire career can be summed as someone who get elected and reelected. What the fuck do we need them for?

54

indigenous 2014 Oct 4, 7:11am

55

HydroCabron 2014 Oct 4, 7:21am

That chart is missing the final column: "Votes Republican on all national and local offices and issues." Then put green checks in columns 2 and 3.

You're welcome!

56

Dan8267 2014 Oct 4, 10:54am

Papercut says

It's your fault. You have let the MSM's slander of the Libertarian party clog your mind and make you a Democrat voter, whether you like it or not. You even espouse that propaganda yourself. Nice.

Examples?

Papercut says

Listen to what the Libertarian party stands for and try to remain objective.

The problems with the Libertarian Party are

1. They talk about civil rights, but only care about letting corporations do whatever they want even when the corporations violate people's rights.

2. They have no concept of public property including the air and the oceans.

3. As a result, they would gladly let our species go extinct through ecological collapse in order to uphold misguided principles.

Thanks, but I'll take a political party that is rational and won't cause the end of the world.

57

Strategist 2014 Oct 4, 10:57am

Thanks, but I'll take a political party that is rational and won't cause the end of the world.

Which one is that?

58

Dan8267 2014 Oct 4, 11:01am

So far none, but the Libertarian Party doesn't qualify.

59

Strategist 2014 Oct 4, 11:06am

So far none, but the Libertarian Party doesn't qualify.

What about the Green Party?

60

indigenous 2014 Oct 4, 11:09am

1. They talk about civil rights, but only care about letting corporations do whatever they want even when the corporations violate people's rights.

The biggest source of this is through crony capitalism. A concept you mutts fail to understand.

2. They have no concept of public property including the air and the oceans.

The tragedy of the commons, exacerbated by not enough private property NOT too much.

http://www.lp.org/how-do-libertarians-republicans-and-democrats-differ

3. As a result, they would gladly let our species go extinct through ecological collapse in order to uphold misguided principles.

I have not that seen that?

61

FortWayne 2014 Oct 4, 11:30am

I'm mostly Libertarian based on that chart, but I do consider myself independent.

62

Strategist 2014 Oct 4, 11:39am

Hey Indigenous, there are lots of independents, which is fine. Way too many communists, which is horrible. No "green party" supporters, which is sad.
Can I defect to the "Green Party" just on principle?

63

Strategist 2014 Oct 4, 11:53am

Call it Crazy says

And the Dems are STILL MIA.... Yet, many posters here are Obama supporters... Hmmm...

Could it be that all the Dems that voted Obama are disappointed and even a little ashamed? They did expect a change based on magic, but Obama's magic wand was not so magical after all. If that is a reflection of what the nation feels, the Dems are doomed.

64

indigenous 2014 Oct 4, 11:56am

The ratio is jacked up. There are at least a half dozen mutts who are democrats by what they say.

I suppose they don't want to be in pigeon holed as they prefer to be esoteric/cool?

Perhaps another poll would be order just on issues? Although I think you can only vote once? That would be a problem.

65

indigenous 2014 Oct 4, 11:57am

Strategist says

even a little ashamed?

I don't think they have that gene.

66

Strategist 2014 Oct 4, 12:01pm